Abstract
Objectives
Popular discourse on abortion in film and television assumes that abortions are under-
and misrepresented. Research indicates that such representations influence public
perception of abortion care and may play a role in the production of social myths
around abortion, with consequences for women’s experience of abortion. To date, abortion
plotlines in American film and television have not been systematically tracked and
analyzed.
Study design
A comprehensive online search was conducted to identify all representations of pregnancy
decision making and abortion in American film and television through January 2013.
Search results were coded for year, pregnancy decision and mortality outcome.
Results
A total of 310 plotlines were identified, with an overall upward trend over time in
the number of representations of abortion decision making. Of these plotlines, 173
(55.8%) resulted in abortion, 80 (25.8%) in parenting, 13 (4.2%) in adoption and 21
(6.7%) in pregnancy loss, and 16 (5.1%) were unresolved. A total of 13.5% (n=42) of stories ended with the death of the woman who considered an abortion, whether
or not she obtained one.
Conclusions
Abortion-related plotlines occur more frequently than popular discourse assumes. Year-to-year
variation in frequency suggests an interactive relationship between media representations,
cultural attitudes and policies around abortion regulation, consistent with cultural
theory of the relationship between media products and social beliefs. Patterns of
outcomes and rates of mortality are not representative of real experience and may
contribute to social myths around abortion. The narrative linking of pregnancy termination
with mortality is of particular note, supporting the social myth associating abortion
with death.
Implications
This analysis empirically describes the number of abortion-related plotlines in American
film and television. It contributes to the systematic evaluation of the portrayal
of abortion in popular culture and provides abortion care professionals and advocates
with an initial accurate window into cultural stories being told about abortion.
Keywords
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to ContraceptionAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Television's most persistent taboo, in The New York Times. 2004 (New York)
- Abortion no longer taboo topic on prime time television, in Fox News. 2011
- 40 years after Roe v. Wade, depictions of abortion are still taboo on television, in International Business Times. 2013
- I'm rooting for an abortion this Friday night, in RH reality check. 2010
- American TV: still not ready for an abortion, in Salon. 2010
- A movie breaks the abortion taboo, in The Daily Beast. 2010
- No cop-outs: 37 years ago, ‘Maude' got the abortion experience right, in RH reality check. 2009
- TV land: a world without choice, in RH reality check. 2009
- Accidentally dodging the question?, in RH reality check. 2009
- True reality television: where's abortion?, in RH reality check. 2008
- Bellafante on Bea Arthur, ‘Maude' and abortion, in The New York Times. 2009 (New York)
- What TV teaches us about abortion, in The Gospel Coalition. 2013
- Cardiopulmonary resuscitation on television.N Engl J Med. 1996; 334: 1578-1582
- Playing doctor: television, storytelling, & medical power. 2nd ed. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor2010
- Herdt G. Howe C. Six Feet Under brings abortion to the surface, in 21st century sexualities: contemporary issues in health, education, and rights. Routledge, New York2007
- Screening choice: the abortion issue in American Film from 1900–2000. VDM Verlag, 2009
- Prime-time feminism: television, media culture, and the women's movement since 1970. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia1996
- Target: prime time: advocacy groups and the struggle over entertainment television. Oxford University Press, New York1989
- Prime time ideology: the hegemonic process in television entertainment.Soc Probl. 1979; 26: 251-266
- Decoding abortion rhetoric: communicating social change. University of Illinois Press, Chicago1990
- News that matters: television and american opinion. 2nd edition. University of Chicago Press, Chicago2010
- Political implications of prime-time drama and sitcom use: genres of representation and opinions concerning women's rights.J Commun. 2003; 53: 45-60
- Speaking of abortion: television and authority in the lives of women. University of Chicago Press, Chicago1999
- An experimental test of the effects of fictional framing on attitudes.Soc Sci Q. 2011; 92: 79-98
- Living with television: the dynamics of the cultivation process.in: Bryant J. Zillmann D. Perspectives on media effects. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ1986: 17-40
Yenerall, K., Reproductive rights and modern film: five women, six movies and the politics of abortion, in American Political Science Association Annual Meeting 2001.
- Popular culture and reproductive politics: Juno, Knocked Up, and the enduring legacy of The Handmaid's Tale.Feminist Theory. 2009; 10: 211-226
- Buying up baby: modern feminine subjectivity, assertions of ‘choice', and the repudiation of reproductive justice in postfeminist unwanted pregnancy films.Feminist Media Studies. 2009; 9: 409-425
- Analyzing the impacts of abortion clinic structures and processes: a qualitative analysis of women's negative experiences of abortion clinics.Contraception. 2012; 85: 204-210
- Pregnancy and power: a short history of reproductive politics in America. New York University Press, New York2007
- CDC Abortion surveillance — United States, 2009. 2012: 1-44
Article info
Publication history
Published online: January 13, 2014
Accepted:
December 31,
2013
Received in revised form:
December 29,
2013
Received:
July 26,
2013
Footnotes
☆Disclosures/conflict of interest: none.
Identification
Copyright
© 2014 Elsevier Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
